What's the point in arguing? You aren't convincing anyone. That whole 'winner' shit is part of the problem. They take the whole argument like its a contest and come off as big losers. It is impossible to 'win' against a religious person

There are various reasons people argue even if they know they won't convince the other side. One of the reasons I do it is because I want to see various points of view and different sides to things. If we all just sit back, say "agree to disagree" at the beginning and don't really discuss anything, then what's the point?

I do think it's interesting that most message boards will have threads of Atheists VS Theists as opposed to Islam VS Christianity VS Buddhism VS Judaism.

I suppose part of this has to do with the US demographic having access to computers, but these threads would be vastly different if you had actual other religions chiming in.

Atheism vs. Theism is actually just Atheism vs. Christianity on here. Would the Christians on this site have a problem with Atheists rejecting Judaism for the same exact reason they reject Christianity, or would they tell them that their reasoning for theism rejection is inappropriate for all religions?

I do think it's interesting that most message boards will have threads of Atheists VS Theists as opposed to Islam VS Christianity VS Buddhism VS Judaism.

I suppose part of this has to do with the US demographic having access to computers, but these threads would be vastly different if you had actual other religions chiming in.

Atheism vs. Theism is actually just Atheism vs. Christianity on here. Would the Christians on this site have a problem with Atheists rejecting Judaism for the same exact reason they reject Christianity, or would they tell them that their reasoning for theism rejection is inappropriate for all religions?

I think it's Atheism versus Theism because it's far, far easier to come up with legitimate arguments for simply "a god could exist" than it is to argue for all the inane, nonsensical, contradicting ramblings in any of the particular holy books or particular religious doctrines.

Once you get down to the nitty gritty origins of any religion, whether you take Christianity or Islam or Judaism or Buddhism of whatever, it becomes pretty hard to defend the true merit and legitimacy of it.

I think it's Atheism versus Theism because it's far, far easier to come up with legitimate arguments for simply "a god could exist" than it is to argue for all the inane, nonsensical, contradicting ramblings in any of the particular holy books or particular religious doctrines.

Once you get down to the nitty gritty origins of any religion, whether you take Christianity or Islam or Judaism or Buddhism of whatever, it becomes pretty hard to defend the true merit and legitimacy of it.

But in many cases that would be deism not theism, and deists would have more cause to ally with ateists than theists. It's that many people don't even know what their own position is in regard to God - which is why they're often vague and ambiguous. Still, there's a huge jump from believing in the need for a Creator, to thinking that this Creator has you in mind/talks to you/watches you etc.

But in many cases that would be deism not theism, and deists would have more cause to ally with ateists than theists. It's that many people don't even know what their own position is in regard to God - which is why they're often vague and ambiguous. Still, there's a huge jump from believing in the need for a Creator, to thinking that this Creator has you in mind/talks to you/watches you etc.

Wouldn't theists just be a broad subset of deists?

I think debates on religion between atheists and believers should be at the deistic level. That part of the picture needs to be confirmed before we can debate things at a theistic level.